What Rational Choice Explains

R. Lane
{"title":"What Rational Choice Explains","authors":"R. Lane","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rational choice theories have been falsified by experimental tests of economic behavior and have not been supported by analyses of behavior in the market. Politics is an even less fertile field of application for rational choice theories because politics deals with ends as well as means, thus preventing ends‐means rationality; voters have partisan loyalties often “fixed” in adolescence; political benefits have no common unit of measurement; “rational ignorance” inhibits rational choices; and there is no market‐like feedback to facilitate learning. Research comparing public and private efficiency does not support rational choice. Ironically, while law and business schools are now employing better microeconomic theories, political scientists are taking up rational choice theory, regardless of the disconfirming evidence.","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Rational Choice Controversy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Rational choice theories have been falsified by experimental tests of economic behavior and have not been supported by analyses of behavior in the market. Politics is an even less fertile field of application for rational choice theories because politics deals with ends as well as means, thus preventing ends‐means rationality; voters have partisan loyalties often “fixed” in adolescence; political benefits have no common unit of measurement; “rational ignorance” inhibits rational choices; and there is no market‐like feedback to facilitate learning. Research comparing public and private efficiency does not support rational choice. Ironically, while law and business schools are now employing better microeconomic theories, political scientists are taking up rational choice theory, regardless of the disconfirming evidence.
理性选择解释了什么
理性选择理论已经被经济行为的实验检验所证伪,也没有得到市场行为分析的支持。政治是理性选择理论应用的一个更不肥沃的领域,因为政治既涉及目的也涉及手段,从而阻止了目的-手段理性;选民的党派忠诚往往在青少年时期就“固定”了;政治利益没有共同的衡量单位;“理性无知”抑制理性选择;而且没有市场反馈来促进学习。比较公共和私人效率的研究并不支持理性选择。具有讽刺意味的是,虽然法学院和商学院现在正在采用更好的微观经济学理论,但政治科学家们正在采用理性选择理论,而不顾与之相悖的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信